Why Canada refused UN’s request to go to the Congo in 2010

By: TONDA MACCHARLES, Toronto Star 

OTTAWA—Canada took a long hard look at sending a military commander and soldiers to lead international peacekeeping troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo at the request of the United Nations.

It was early 2010. And the Canadian government was angling — in vain, it would turn out — for a rotating seat on the powerful UN Security Council.

By May, the former Conservative government of prime minister Stephen Harper had turned down the request.

Canada would not send soldiers to lead or boost a UN mission that was struggling to stabilize a massive country where government and army corruption was endemic, rebel attacks rocked the east, and violence to control Congo’s vast mineral riches flared.

The government offered only a brief explanation: “Canada is fully engaged in Afghanistan until 2011. That is what we are concentrating on for now.”


However, with Africa back on the radar, the Star conducted interviews and reviewed nearly 1,000 pages of heavily redacted documents obtained under the Access to Information Act to put together a picture of why Canada gave the UN the cold shoulder, and to shed light on the looming decision facing the current Liberal government.

It’s clear that in 2010 it wasn’t simply a question of military resource constraints. The military said it had enough.

Instead, it came down to a political decision by Harper to avoid what looked certain to be a military and political quagmire for years to come.



Sources say Harper and his cabinet took the view that Canadian soldiers should not be sent to function as domestic or counterterrorism police in countries that were effectively at civil war where there was no end in sight.

Another source puts it differently. Deepak Obhrai, parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs at the time, said: “Let me tell you, the Harper doctrine was very clear on these things — if you’re not effective, he does not see why we should be going out there.”

Six years later, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau boasts that “Canada’s back” on the world stage.

He, too, is angling for a seat on the Security Council, but he has decided to recommit Canadian troops to UN “peace operations.” Ministers and public servants are analyzing where to deploy up to 600 Canadian soldiers and 150 police.

Three ministers say a decision has not yet been made. But it seems several African hot spotsbeckon: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, South Sudan, or the Central African Republic.

All present opportunities, challenges and risks from Canada’s perspective.

Last time around, that is exactly what the public servants, deputy ministers, military leaders and government officials analyzed.

There had been at least three requests from the UN for Canada to contribute a commander to the Congo mission, according to the documents. The UN also indicated it needed 13 helicopters, “intelligence assets,” and a C-130 Hercules military transport aircraft for a mission that was — and remains — the largest deployment of peacekeeping troops in the world, where some 20,000 military personnel wear blue helmets.

The UN asked Ottawa to send a deputy police commander for its police mission in Congo. In addition, the European Union, which also had a police operation there, asked Canada for a police commander and officers.

At least one senior Mountie, who had previously worked with the EU’s mission, urged the RCMP to accept.

However, an RCMP briefing memo was grim:

“The conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been one of the bloodiest, longest-running struggles in the world, with a death toll surpassing that of Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

“Belligerents on all sides commit horrific human rights violations and use sexual violence as a weapon of war. The front lines of the conflict are blurred, with many actors with varying loyalties.”

The RCMP called the overall security situation in the country “stable, but unpredictable, particularly in the east”



Then, as now, Congo President Joseph Kabila faced elections and was fighting to keep power. He demanded the UN reduce its troops and he strong-armed his opposition critics.



Today, Kabila is defying a constitutional two-term limit and vying for a third. The UN reported last week that Congolese police, armed forces and the Republican Guard had used excessive — including lethal — force to quell demonstrations in September when at least 53 people were killed and 143 injured over two days, and more than 299 were unlawfully arrested.

The assumption in 2010 by military and foreign affairs officials was that a Canadian commander would need Canadian troops under his direct command. The lesson of retired lieutenant-general Roméo Dallaire’s 1994 experience in Rwanda had been learned.

Officials urged that the request for a force commander and the possibility of a larger troop contingent in 2011 be considered separately.

According to Andrew Leslie, who was then the commander of Canada’s army, the Department of National Defence believed the deployment was not only doable, but easily managed and worth doing.



Now an elected Liberal MP and government “whip,” Leslie said the military had ample capacity to take on a new deployment, putting the skills honed in Afghanistan to work in another country that needed stabilizing. It could show allies that Canada was prepared to help in other global hot spots.



At first, Michael Kaduck, director of peace operations and fragile states policy at Foreign Affairs, wrote that the mission was “potentially an attractive offer” in line with Canada’s priorities in the region.

In a widely distributed memo, he nevertheless urged “a hard look” at what civilian, military and police support Canada could offer, what impact it would have on Canada’s engagement in UN missions in Haiti, Darfur and South Sudan, and what kind of political support such a mission would require and for how long.

“We need to consider the overall question of whether this is the right UN mission for Canada, now and in post-2011,” wrote Kaduck.

At that time, Canada had just 12 soldiers posted to the UN in Congo, mainly as legal advisers to improve the military justice system and the Congolese capacity to investigate and prosecute the rampant sexual violence.

For months, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade analyzed the UN request under criteria for when Canada should intervene in fragile states and conflict zones. It sought input from its many branches, Canada’s international development agency CIDA and from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Candice Dandurand, a civilian deployment officer at foreign affairs, “firmly” supported sending Mounties to the EU mission, according to a March 17, 2010 email. She said it dovetailed with Canada’s support of the UN mission to fight rampant sexual and gender-based violence, and had the backing of the department’s Africa branch and the Canadian embassy in Kinshasa, the capital.

Other advisers identified challenges: Canadian allies were represented at mission headquarters, but there were no “formed contingents” of allies on the ground. The bulk of the UN forces came from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Uruguay and South Africa.

Canada had already contributed more than $250 million on the Congo mission since its start in 1999, and had spent $124 million over the previous decade in humanitarian and development aid, and could build on its work.

There had been “progress” as a result of Canada’s efforts, but advisers said “much more is needed.”

“The DRC is a fragile but not a failed state.”

The analysis weighed more questions: whether Congo was a direct and/or indirect threat to Canada or its allies, whether it was a source of organized crime or terrorism, whether Canada had a major strategic interest, such as a key bilateral relationship, at play and whether engagement carried “implications under international law, including tribunals such as the International Criminal Court.”

The answers to those questions and others are blacked out.

Andrew Leslie fills in some of the gaps.

He says the Canadian Forces saw the region’s instability as a potential recruiting ground for Al Qaeda and were keen to help stabilize it. He says government officials also considered the extensive business interests of the Canadian mining industry, and the fact that China was increasingly influential in the country.

Leslie was dispatched in February 2010 — before the UN’s request was formalized in March — on a reconnaissance trip.

Leslie says the military had boosted its ranks of reservists and regular members by 3,000 members in the three years up to 2009. “I knew, and we knew, that we would have had capacity in 2010 . . . to launch into the DRC — not in the same scale as in Afghanistan but in a meaningful way . . . and we could have sustained it, of course.

“It was viewed as a mission that was definitely interesting. If the government of Canada wanted us to do it, we would do it.”



The military’s enthusiasm didn’t impress the Harper government.



In the view of two former senior Harper government officials, the military was always keen to deploy, no matter what.

The government insiders spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about cabinet-level discussions at that time.

One told the Star that the UN’s request, like many that came to the Harper government, amounted to a dangerous mission that threatened to put Canadian lives on the line in a country where there was little peace to keep, and no clear end in sight.

The Conservative prime minister’s skepticism was a big change from 2006 when Harper first travelled to Afghanistan and told Canadian troops that they were, “serving in a UN-mandated, Canadian-led security operation that is in the very best of the Canadian tradition, providing leadership on global issues, stepping up to the plate, doing good when good is required.”



Others explain the government’s thinking differently.



Obhrai said in an interview the government had “no appetite” for the mission because it had concluded Canadian troops could not be “effective” in achieving Canadian goals. It was thought the “more appropriate” intervention would be to offer logistical support to African Union forces, which the Conservatives did. As well, given widespread human rights abuses, including by government forces, “it would have been absolutely disastrous,” said Obhrai.

“Who are you supporting? Which side are you going with? The side that you want to go with are (sic) also being accused of human rights abuses.”

Whatever misgivings Harper had were soon underscored.

At Foreign Affairs, plans for a team of department and RCMP officials to travel to Congo were put on hold because Canada’s then-governor general, Michaëlle Jean, was on an official four-country visit to Africa, including Congo and Rwanda — at Harper’s request.

Jean’s mid-April trip revealed just how much displeasure had been generated by the Harper government’s decision to reduce the number of African countries eligible for aid, and how little enthusiasm there was for Canada’s attempt to win a Security Council seat.

While she was there, a senior UN official in Congo made a direct public appeal to Canada to help. Soon after Jean returned to Ottawa, it was rebuffed. The government decided to turn down the request for a commander.

Late on April 29, 2010, Canada notified the UN of its decision, and Defence Minister Peter MacKay reassigned Leslie to lead a study of how to transform the Canadian Forces.

“I think they (the former government) were tired of the Afghan war,” Leslie now says. “That they were tired of either soldiers going overseas and getting hurt . . . or even worse. I think they were tired of spending money on these missions, and they were a tired team.”

Yet even after refusing the UN’s request, officials continued to study the possibility of deploying to Congo in the following year. The Foreign Affairs and RCMP team finally travelled to Congo in mid-May.

What the group saw there was eye-opening.

Handwritten notes from one unidentified official documented “a lack of infrastructure, starvation deaths in prison” and a dismal judicial system unable to keep pace with sex-crime investigations. Goma’s one judge faced a “backlog of 8,000 cases.” The country had fewer than 1,200 judges and needed “at least 5,000.”

It’s difficult, due to redactions, to say if the final recommendation to cabinet was in favour of a deployment of more Canadian military and civilian resources.

But Leslie believes the bureaucratic analysis shifted to accommodate the political signal that the government was averse to the mission.

Today, he still believes Canada should engage in an African mission, although as a member of the Privy Council, he will not say where he thinks Canada can be most effective.

Obhrai, one of the Conservative party’s leadership contenders, says the problems that were obvious in Congo in 2010 are evident to this day, and the same risks exist no matter what troubled nation in Africa Trudeau might be looking at.

He said his advice to Trudeau: “Don’t do it.”

Nation Star-struck by Blue Helmets

By: Michael Den Tandt, National Post 

There is a planet, considerably closer than Proxima Centauri B, where the spirit of redshirted, Stephen-Harperhating partisania lives on, undimmed by last year’s change of power. It is a land that time forgot, mystical and unsullied. It is a land of … oh heck, it’s at One Yonge Street, the editorial boardroom of the Toronto Star.

In this ineffable high country of the mind, the Canada of 30, 40 and 50 years ago lives on, as though locked in amber. Lester B. Pearson, jovial and stolid, bestrides a convention stage next to the electric young patrician, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Bad guys and bank robbers wear natty suits and hats. And peacekeeping, Canada’s singular contribution to planetary justice, bestrides the world like a colossus.

Why, we had 3,300 soldiers in Cyprus, the Golan Heights, Cambodia and the former Yugoslavia “in 1993 alone,” the Star’s editorial enthused Sunday, as it celebrated Canada’s imminent return to its blue-helmeted United Nations-supporting past, with 600 soldiers bound for peacekeeping duty in various parts of Africa. Canada is back, indeed. It is way, way back.

But, could trouble be afoot? “Peacekeeping is more complicated now,” the editorial continues, with a worldweary droop to its rhetorical shoulders, “requiring a combination of military, political, humanitarian and development skills. Forces in conflict are rarely composed of well-disciplined armies; instead peacekeepers often find themselves dealing with a chaotic mix of tribal militias, terrorist groups, broken states and unprincipled governments.”

Having unburdened herself or himself of this revelatory gem, the Star’s editorial writer gets bullet-chewing tough — on the former federal government, the one not currently sending any Canadian soldiers anywhere.

“It’s wise to re-engage carefully, especially given Canada’s record of relative inaction in peace operations under former prime minister Stephen Harper. Favouring isolation over UN activism, he allowed a celebrated tradition of Canadian peacekeeping to wither.” Terrible!

However, the Star’s writer concludes with evident joy, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals have set the stars back on their proper course. “The Liberal government is going a considerable way in correcting Harper’s neglect. With millions of innocent civilians at imminent risk of brutalization and death in war zones around the world, Canada has a humanitarian duty to take meaningful action in easing the threat.”


To call the foregoing nonsense understates it some. That The Star saw fit to print this is amazing, even in a time when newspaper editorial writers are called upon to dash off their offerings in minutes, like performance art.

Where to begin? A briefing book provided to Foreign Affairs minister Stéphane Dion following his appointment to cabinet, obtained by Postmedia’s David Akin via access to information, outlined the status quo ante — peacekeeping at the close of the Harper era.

There were five small Canadian “peace-support” missions underway, under UN auspices, in October 2015 — in the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, Haiti, Cyprus and Israel/ Lebanon. Canada ranked 68th among 124 countries in troop contributions to UN operations — and was the ninth-largest contributor, worldwide, to the UN’s annual peacekeeping budget, with an annual outlay just shy of US$240 million.

Additionally, the document shows, Canadian soldiers were contributing in small numbers to the Multinational Force and Observers mission in the Sinai, the Office of the U.S. Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the NATO Kosovo Force, as well as European Union support operations in the West Bank and Ukraine. Hardly a portrait of neglect.

More importantly, this portrayal of Canadian military history — which I have heard repeated in various iterations by Grit partisans for years, running into decades — contains bomb-cratersized holes. Most egregiously, it airbrushes the laudable peace-building aspects of the Afghan mission from 2002 to 2014, as well as the failures of peacekeeping in Somalia and Rwanda in the mid-1990s, from the frame.

It was a Liberal government, that of Jean Chrétien, that exacerbated the Somalia debacle with its shoddy handling of the aftermath, and its wrong-headed disbanding of the Airborne Regiment. The same government presided over the catastrophic failures of the Rwanda mission. It was also a Liberal government that launched the Afghan mission, both in its post-9/11 initial phase in 2002 and its more robust humanitarian and combat phase beginning in late 2005. Liberals enthusiastically backed the Afghan mission — until the day Harper took power in 2006, after which they began enthusiastically bashing it. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan knows this history well, having served with distinction in Afghanistan.

The prime minister, his defence and foreign ministers are not to blame for a bad editorial, granted. But they do share responsibility for perpetuating a transparently false construct of a glorious peacekeeping past that hasn’t corresponded to Canadian soldiers’ reality for at least the past 25 years.

Should the coming deployments be ramshackle, the rules of engagement prohibitive, the demands impossible, these ministers will take the blame. And they will deserve it, having had ample occasion to learn from their predecessors’ mistakes — or talk to a few veteran sergeants, perish the thought, and hear them tell the reality of peacekeeping, versus the otherworldly myth.

Harper government funded Seaspan Shipyard to help with Contract

BY MARIE-DANIELLE SMITH

OTTAWA — The former Conservative government quietly helped fund improvements for a Vancouver shipyard that was scrambling to get ready for shipbuilding, despite saying it would not do so.

Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards received about $40 million in 2014-15 to get its engineering systems up to speed as it prepared to build non-combat vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard, documents suggest.

But one of the premises underlying the Conservative government’s enormous National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) — lauded by prime minister Stephen Harper’s government as the biggest defence program in Canadian history — is that shipyards would have to fund improvements to their shipbuilding infrastructure at no cost to Ottawa.

The existence of a government-funded program to help Seaspan, an association of western Canadian marine transportation companies, was revealed at a House of Commons committee meeting in December 2014.

Marty Muldoon, assistant deputy minister and chief financial officer at Fisheries and Oceans, told committee members $9.5 million of his department’s money was going to the “horizontal engineering program plan,” an initiative shared with the Department of National Defence.

That money was to help Seaspan “hit full stride in manufacturing capability or construction capability for our vessels,” he said.

“Basically, what we’re doing is investing in the shipyard’s capability to get itself up to capacity, to start churning out vessels.”

(Seaspan) went from a very small shipyard to a very large shipyard in a very short amount of time.

Though Public Services and Procurement Canada admits the contract is being used to help Seaspan create “material, engineering and production standards” for its yard, making systems consistent across “multiple projects,” it says this doesn’t count as the type of shipyard improvement forbidden under the agreement governing NSPS.

Jessica Kingsbury, a spokeswoman for PSPC, said this contract is “clearly distinguished” from capital investments Seaspan made to ready its yard for shipbuilding.

The horizontal engineering program plan is “in no way related to the criteria which the shipyards were required to meet, at their own cost, to achieve target-state,” she added.

Rather, it aims to co-ordinate and manage Seaspan’s non-combat package “more strategically,” through building a “program management capability.”

All three bids for NSPS contracts — from Halifax-based Irving, Seaspan and Quebec-based Davie — orginally included the guarantee that Ottawa wouldn’t pay to help the shipyards get ready for shipbuilding. Federal money would only go towards the shipbuilding projects.

But successful bidders Irving and Seaspan lacked capacity to start building ships when umbrella agreements were announced in 2011. Both negotiated to include clauses in the agreements, saying Ottawa would reimburse them for shipyard infrastructure if it decided to spend less than promised on new ships.

Irving and Seaspan also went to the provinces for money. Irving got a $304-million loan from Nova Scotia, $260 million of it forgivable, while Seaspan got only $40 million, for training from British Columbia.

No federal money was officially announced for either shipyard.

The agreement between Ottawa and Seaspan, dated Feb. 14, 2012, obtained by the National Post, says Seaspan agreed any improvements to shipyard capacity would be “paid for by the company entirely at its own expense” — unless Canada reneged on its commitments.

In November 2014, Seaspan announced a two-year, $170-million project to modernize its shipyard had finished “ahead of schedule and under-budget,” according to its website.

Still, recent job postings show it has continued hiring people to work on the “horizontal engineering program plan.”

The plan does not include improvements to physical infrastructure, but focuses on improving engineering systems, technical programs and management, says a consultant who worked for Seaspan from April to October 2014.

“It covered the whole spectrum of trying to stand up an engineering organization that was robust enough to support the overall shipbuilding objectives,” said Matt von Ruden, now director of vessels at Washington State Ferries.

Employees believed Ottawa was helping fund this work, he confirmed. “The government understood the need for this program, as far as I understand,” he said.

“(Seaspan) went from a very small shipyard to a very large shipyard in a very short amount of time.”

The fact government money was used for “systems” and “programs,” not physical infrastructure, may have made this a grey area under NSPS guidelines.

Several unusual contracts posted on the government’s Buy and Sell website from June 2014 to October 2015 appear to show money flowing into such programs.

For example, Public Services and Procurement Canada sourced just under $40 million in “engineering services” from the Vancouver shipyard.

Contracts are labelled as noncompetitive, representing the “best interests” and “value” to government. They differ from other contracts held by Seaspan, which are usually identified as being tied to a shipbuilding project.

The NSPS has an official budget of $39 billion, with $8 billion set aside for non-combat vessels.

Construction is expected to take at least 20 to 30 years, says the procurement department.

Seaspan began building the first of three offshore fisheries science vessels in June 2015 and the second in March. The three vessels, the first NSPS ships to come out of the improved Vancouver shipyard, are scheduled to be delivered by the end of 2017.

• Email: mdsmith@postmedia.com |
© Copyright (c) National Post

Canada to Seek Seat on Security Council

Written By: The Associated Press

Originally published February 11, 2016

Canada plans to make a bid for a seat on the UN Security Council, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Thursday as he hosted UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.

At a news conference in Ottawa, Trudeau said he has indicated to Ban that Canada wants to “re-engage robustly” with the United Nations and the global community.

That includes “looking towards a bid for the UN Security Council," Trudeau said.

In 2010, Canada lost its bid for a two-year council term to Portugal, even though it held a seat at the table off and on for six decades. Critics blamed the historic loss on Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, saying that it failed to make a strong bid.

Paul Heinbecker, a former Canadian ambassador to the UN, said Canada’s frosty relationship with the organization dates back to 2006 when a Canadian peacekeeper was killed during the Israeli-Lebanese war.

“The loss of the Security Council seat, I think, was indicative that the contempt that the Canadian government was manifesting for the UN was being reciprocated by the UN members,” Heinbecker said on CTV’s Power Play Thursday.

“They preferred a bankrupt Portugal -- a country they knew was bankrupt -- to a solvent Canada,” he said.

Heinbecker said former prime minister Harper “basically snubbed” the UN multiple times by choosing to not show up to events.

“I think what we saw today with Ban Ki-Moon and Prime Minister Trudeau in their press conference was a much warmer relationship, a much more enthusiastic relationship.”

Ban said he welcomes Trudeau’s plan and called Canada “one of our most important partners.”

He credited Trudeau’s leadership with helping secure the “breakthrough” global agreement on climate change reached at the Paris summit in December.

Ban also “highly” applauded Canada’s ongoing efforts to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees.

Ban said he and Trudeau had a “very constructive exchange” Thursday on a number of issues that also included global security and Canada’s contribution to UN peacekeeping missions, which has fallen from around 3,300 troops in 1993 to just 113 today.

The UN chief also seemed to nudge Trudeau to boost Canada’s international aid spending for poorer nations.

“I’m sure that Prime Minister Trudeau and his government will pay more focus on this matter,” Ban said.

Both Ban and Trudeau expressed their outrage over recent allegations that UN peacekeepers sexually abused underage girls in the Central African Republic.

Canada’s Weapons exports grew more than 89 per cent under Harper

Written by Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics 

Canada’s arms exports shot up while Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government was in office, fuelled by higher sales to countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Mexico and Austria, an analysis by iPolitics has found.

Between 2006 and 2013, the last year for which numbers are available, Canada’s exports of military goods to countries outside the United States rose 89 per cent. However, that number is likely to hit a new high once figures for 2014 become available and a controversial $15 billion General Dynamics armoured vehicle sale to Saudi Arabia is added to the totals.

While the United Kingdom was the top destination outside of the United States for military equipment manufactured in Canada when the Liberals left office in 2005, that title now goes to Saudi Arabia, whose human rights record — particularly the recent beheading of a Shiite cleric — has made the armoured vehicle deal a target for opposition critics, including the Conservatives who approved of it in government.

During the election campaign, Harper defended the deal, saying that while Saudi Arabia may have committed significant human rights violations, it is an ally in the fight against the Islamic State and cancelling the deal would punish Canadian workers.

The Liberal government has said it has no plans to cancel the deal.

The Middle Eastern country accounts for near a quarter of the military goods exported by Canada to countries other than the U.S. in 2013. In 2012, a year that Canada set a record for arms exports with $1 billion worth of sales, Saudi Arabia accounted for 40 per cent of military exports.

Ken Epps, a policy advisor to Project Ploughshares, a peace group that monitors Canada’s arms sales, says the destination of Canada’s military exports has shifted.

“In recent years it is clear that the government has been trying to promote arms exports to outside of the more typical markets of the U.S and Europe and NATO in particular because defence spending has declined in both the U.S. and Europe and in order to try and sustain the Canadian arms industry new markets have been sought,” he said.

“In the case of the Conservatives, they were almost indiscriminate in the markets they were seeking because they were looking at the Middle East, they were looking at Latin America, they were looking at South Asia and in many cases at countries where there are very legitimate concerns – either about regional security or human rights violations."

Christyn Cianfarani, president of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI) agrees that sales to Europe and the U.S. are down – in part because of Buy America policies and budget sequestration in Washington. However, she disagrees that there has been any loosening of the rules in selling to countries with questionable records.

“The export regime has been in place and is quite vigorous,” said Cianfarani. “So the rules, to my knowledge, have not changed and they have not loosened with respect to the countries where we have been allowed to sell controlled goods to.”

She adds that it’s a mistake to say that because other areas were softening that the government was more lackadaisical on the export regime. “We certainly haven’t seen any evidence of that whatsoever.”

The Trudeau government is taking a closer look at Canada’s arms sales, trying to determine what steps Canada must take to accede to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The landmark multilateral treaty, which entered into force in December 2014, seeks to regulate the international trade in conventional weapons.

Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government refused to sign the treaty, making Canada one of only a handful of countries — and the only NATO member — that wasn’t a signatory.

Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion’s ministerial mandate letter calls for him to take the steps necessary to accede to the treaty and Tania Assaly, spokesman for the department of Global Affairs, says that is underway.

“Before acceding to the treaty, Canada must ensure that it has put in place domestically all legislation or regulations that would be required to ensure that we can fully meet the obligations under the treaty,” she wrote. “Officials are currently undertaking internal legislative and policy reviews in order to identify those changes that might be necessary before Canada accedes to the ATT.”

Epps believes that the shipments of military goods to Saudi Arabia, including the $15 billion armoured vehicle deal, could be called into question if Canada accedes to the arms trade treaty.

“Our view is that the provisions of the arms trade treaty, if interpreted correctly, would require Canada to reassess and even deny sales of armoured vehicles to the Saudi National Guard,” he said.

If political parties are reluctant to touch the Saudi deal, it could be in part because of the role the defence industry plays in Canada’s economy.

A 2012 study by the accounting firm KPMG commissioned by CADSI estimated Canada’s defence and security industries generated $12.6 billion in revenue in 2011 and employed 71,000 Canadians. While nearly half of the goods and services produced remained in Canada, 50.4 percent or $6.4 billion was exported.

The federal government’s Report on Exports of Military Goods from Canada lists a far more modest number — $1.04 billion for 2012 and $681.4 million for 2013. However, the report does not include sales of military goods to the United States, which the government estimates account for half of Canada’s military exports each year.

Cianfarini points out that the federal government numbers also don’t include Canada’s growing service support industry.

“Traditionally, things that end up getting collected under the controlled goods regime are of a product nature because they’re trackable. What people don’t understand about the defence industry in Canada is that it has a very large service component which has been growing over the past 10 years as Canadian industry diversifies its business.”

For example, the government’s statistics wouldn’t include contracts Canadian companies have to service and maintain military aircraft from countries like Mexico where the aircraft is flown to Canada for maintenance, she said.

Exports by Canadian defence manufacturers also benefit Canada in other ways as well, Cianfarini pointed out. Foreign sales of equipment lead to lower prices for the Canadian Armed Forces and many innovations or new developments in military equipment can have non-military applications that also create jobs.

While the numbers can vary widely from year to year because of the nature of defence contracts, figures show that Canada’s exports of military goods has crept steadily upwards since 2005 when sales totaled $322 million under former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin’s government. The exports reached a high of $1 billion in 2012 before slipping down to $681.3 million – the third highest level since 2003 when exports under former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien reached $723.5 million.

One of the countries where Canadian military exports rose the most during Harper’s government was Jordan – a country whose human rights record has been questioned by groups like Amnesty International. Military exports jumped from only $6,580 in 2006 to $15 million in 2011 before falling back to $888,467 in 2013 — the year that Harper named the head of his RCMP security detail, Bruno Saccomani, as Canada’s ambassador.

According to government figures, Jordan’s biggest buys are in imaging equipment.

Sales to Mexico also grew during those years. In 2006, when Harper came to power, Mexico’s purchases of military goods had dropped to $15,573 from $1 million in 2003. By 2012, military exports to Mexico had risen to $1.2 million before dropping back to $889,854 in 2013. Mexico’s biggest spending is on ground vehicles and imaging equipment.

Austria, which was already a strong customer for Canadian military goods, had the third largest rise between 2006 and 2013 – particularly during the last two years, when it jumped to $11.3 million then $88.6 million. According to federal government figures, the growth was in guns and ground vehicles.

Sales to a number of other countries, however, have declined. For example, Greece, which bought $8.4 million worth of military goods in 2006 dropped to a fraction of that amount the following year and in 2013 it only bought $56,875 worth of goods – much of it aircraft equipment. Oman, which imported $3.5 million in Canadian military goods in 2006 and $24 million in 2008, spent only $266,512 in 2013 – largely for simulators.

The top five buyers for Canada’s military goods also changed almost completely from 2006 to 2013. In the Liberals last year in power in 2005, the United Kingdom led the list, buying aircraft and parts, followed by Australia buying ground vehicles, France, South Korea and Singapore.

By 2013 the top buyers came from Saudi Arabia, principally purchasing ground vehicles, then the United Kingdom shopping for aviation and imaging equipment, followed by Austria, Italy and Germany.

Cianfarini says Canadian defence manufacturers have been shipping goods to Saudi Arabia since the 1990s and consider it a good market.

“Canada has nurtured a long-standing relationship with Saudi Arabia, because the Middle East is particularly important to us – not only from an oil perspective but also from a regional politics perspective going way back,” she said. “You’re seeing that from a Canadian business community point of view — it has a relatively open market, in that there aren’t great impediments. If you put those two together it’s logical that it would be perceived by Canadian companies as a market that has opportunity for us.”

Hélène Laverdière, NDP foreign affairs critic and a former Canadian diplomat, says Canada needs more transparency and consistency in its reporting on military exports.

“It is absolutely essential that parliamentarians and Canadian have that information,” said Laverdière.

Laverdière would like to see the Liberal government make public the evaluation that would have been done before the Conservative government agreed to allow armoured vehicles to be sold to Saudi Arabia. She also wants Canada to accede to the arms trade treaty.

“We will continue to push the Trudeau government to assure that we do that as soon as possible. We are the only NATO country that hasn’t signed.”

Conservative Foreign Affairs Critic Tony Clement has not yet responded to requests for an interview.

elizabeththompson@ipolitics.ca

Canadian Surface Combatant Fleet - Is the Program Salvageable?

New questions are being asked about the Canadian National Shipbuilding Program that was instituted by the previous Conservative government.

For years public servants, outside contractors, auditors (including the Auditor General Michael Ferguson) have said that the $26 Billion earmarked for the program would not be enough. Ferguson called the funding, "insufficient" in a 2013 report.

Yesterday, Vice Admiral Mark Norman, head of the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) told CBC that the warnings from industries about the lack of funding were accurate.

To put it simply - the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC)  Fleet will cost well above the $26 Billion budget.



The CSC fleet is supposed to be the back bone of the RCN from 2025 to 2035; replacing the Halifax-Class frigates and the Iroquois-class destroyers. The $26 Billion was to build "up to 15" new warships according to the former Harper Government.

During the 2015 election campaign, Stephen Harper continued to dismiss claims that the CSC Fleet could not be built with the $26 Billion. He said the Navy would adjust. A few insiders claimed that as few as 8 or 10 CSC vessels could be built with the $26 billion.

The question now is, under a new government can the CSC Fleet be salvaged?

During the election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that any savings from withdrawing from the F-35 program would be directed to the RCN to ensure it gets the ships it needs.

According to the RCN - it NEEDS at least 15 ships - so if the total number of CSC gets cut, it would dramatically harm its operational capabilities. Although some independent analysts say the RCN will either have to accept fewer ships or the government will need to pony up more money.

Some are saying the RCN should do without an area air defence variant CSC, and settle on a more basic design. Both are a possibility. But, so is asking for more money from the new Liberal government for the CSC is another. It will be a test for the Liberals who promised during the election campaign to ensure that the RCN gets the ships it needs.

According to CBC, to build the proposed 15 ships - it will cost upwards of $42 Billion. 

8 Arctic Countries to Sign Coast Guard Treaty

Article Written by By Bob Weber, The Canadian Press

All eight Arctic nations — including Canada and Russia — are to sign a historic deal next week for their coast guards to work together in the treacherous and increasingly accessible waters of the North.

Creating the Arctic Coast Guard Forum is considered a significant step forward for international co-operation in the region and will flesh out previous search and rescue agreements.

"(The forum) will be an operationally focused organization that strengthens maritime co-operation and co-ordination in the Arctic," said an emailed statement from the United States Coast Guard.

"The impetus for creating (it) grew out of the concerns of Arctic Council member countries over the increasing need to ensure safety, security, and stewardship of Arctic waters."

Canadian Coast Guard Ship Des Groseilliers in Canadian Arctic Waters in this undated photo.
Photo (Canadian Coast Guard)

The forum will also discuss emergency response, icebreaking and collaboration, said a statement from the Canadian government.

"The heads of the eight coast guard agencies, including Canada, have agreed that collaboration on such operational matters is to everyone's benefit," said Carole Swaindon of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which runs the Canadian Coast Guard.

The forum was to have been created in Canada in March 2014.

An agreement in principle had been reached and the final deal was supposed to have been signed. But negotiations were delayed when the Harper government refused to allow Russian officials to take part.

"The (Prime Minister's Office) insisted the Russians not be invited because of the Ukraine," said John Higginbotham, who attended that meeting as a fellow of Carleton University's Centre for International Governance Innovation.

Canada's allies were not pleased at the refusal, Higginbotham said.

"That really put the cat among the pigeons."

Russians were allowed into the U.S. to complete the talks after the Americans assumed the lead. The deal will be signed at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn., at a meeting between the leaders of all eight services.

The signatories include Canada, the U.S., Russia, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. The meeting takes place next Wednesday through Friday.

In most countries, coast guards are a branch of the military. That means the new forum will also provide a venue for high-ranking officers from different countries to meet regularly and open channels of communication, say experts.

"It will create another channel of communication, especially between the United States and Russia," said international law professor Michael Byers. "This is part of a larger Russian and American strategy to maintain and build these back channels so as to provide some stability to the larger relationship."

Under the deal, the coast guard heads are to meet yearly.

The deal also puts meat on the bones of the 2011 treaty on Arctic search and rescue, negotiated through the Arctic Council. That treaty committed signatories to providing search and rescue in their sector of the North.

One of the forum's first actions next week in Connecticut will be to run a tabletop search and rescue simulation. That will establish communications protocols and determine who responds to what.

The head of the U.S. Coast Guard, Admiral Paul Zukunft, has said an actual exercise could be mounted as early as next year.

The forum, although it will involve military personnel, will steer clear of security issues. That will follow the lead of other coast guard forums that already exist, such as those for the North Atlantic and North Pacific.

The forum is separate from the Arctic Council, the chief international diplomatic body on northern issues. However, its leadership will rotate in concert with the council, which is now led by the U.S.

October 22nd Ottawa Attack: Photos of One Year Anniversary

All Photos property of The Canadian Press - Adrian Wyld and Sean Kilpatrick 

Corporal Nathan Cirillo's son, Marcus, places a wreath during the ceremoney remembering his fathers death at the National War Memorial in Ottawa. 

Members of the Cirillo family attend the ceremonial service at the National War Memorial on  the October 22, 2015 ceremony remembering the attacks in Ottawa and St. Jean.  

Prime Minister-Elect Justin Trudeau (Left) and outgoing Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Right) lay a wreath on behalf of the Government of Canada at the October 22, 2015 ceremony remembering the attacks in Ottawa and St. Jean.  

Flowers are placed at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the National War Memorial in Ottawa, remembering the Attacks that took the lives of two CAF members. 

A new Memorial Plaque unverilled during the ceremony, marking the death of Corporal Nathan Cirillo. Located to the right of the National War Memorial in Ottawa. 

Outgoing Prime Minister Stephen Harper shakes the hand of Marcus Cirillo, the son of Corporal Nathan Cirillo, who was killed at the National War Memorial on October 22, 2014. 

Prime Minister-Elect Justin Trudeau (Left) and outgoing Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Right) reflect after laying a wreath on behalf of the Government of Canada at the October 22, 2015 ceremony remembering the attacks in Ottawa and St. Jean.

Prime Minister-Elect Justin Trudeau (2nd from Left) and his wife Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau (left) and Laureen Harper (middle) and outgoing Prime Minister Stephen Harper (right) during the National Anthem at the October 22, 2015 ceremony remembering the attacks in Ottawa and St. Jean.

October 22nd Ottawa Attack: One Year Anniversary Ceremony

The Government of Canada will hold a ceremony at the National War Memorial on October 22, 2015, at 11 a.m., to commemorate the assault on Parliament Hill one year ago.

The event will also honour the sacrifices of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo, and the bravery of the first responders.

His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada, and other dignitaries will attend the event. Dignitaries will lay wreaths and His Excellency will deliver an address on this occasion. Out going Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Prime Minister-Elect Justin Trudeau will also be in attendance.

A 21-gun salute will be fired by 30th Field Artillery Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery from the lawns of Parliament Hill around 11 a.m.

Four Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 Hornets, based out of CFB Bagotville will conduct a flyby in the missing man formation over the National War Memorial at 11:20 a.m.

50 members of the Royal Canadian Air Force will be in attendance in honour of Warrant Officer Vincent as he was an RCAF Firefighter;

50 members of the Canadian Army members including members of The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada (Princess Louise’s) will be in attendance in honour of Corporal Cirillo.

There will be two 50-person marching contingents of Ottawa Police Service, Ottawa Paramedics, Ottawa Fire Service, Ontario Provincial Police, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Parliamentary Precinct Guards to honour the First Responders who were at the event of 2014;

Members of the public are welcome to attend.

When: Thursday, October 22, 2015, 11 a.m.

Where: The National War Memorial, 30 Wellington Street, Ottawa

What: A ceremony to commemorate the assault on Parliament Hill and the deaths of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo.

Entry is restricted to journalists accredited through the Parliamentary Press Gallery. To register and for more information on accreditation, contact Terry Guillon, Chief of the Press Gallery, at 613-992-4511 or terry.guillon@parl.gc.ca.

Canada in Iraq: CDS Vance to Provide Trudeau with Options

David Pugliese had  a good piece today in the Ottawa Citizen, discussing Canada's possible future role in Iraq against the Islamic State (ISIS). The new Liberal government plans to end Canada's bombing campaign, but no end date has been determined yet. 

General (Then Lt. Gen) Jonathan Vance (former Commander of Canadian Joint Operations Command) holds a technical briefing on combat strikes against ISIS at NDHQ in Ottawa in the fall of 2014.

Article Written by David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen, October 22, 2015 (page A13)

Military planners are working to come up with scenarios for the new Liberal government on how Canada can contribute troops to train Iraqi forces battling the Islamic State, even as Canada winds down the bombing campaign.

Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau this week reaffirmed his intention to have Canada pull out of the bombing against ISIL in Iraq and Syria, and instead focus on troops to train Iraqi soldiers.

Canada already has 69 special forces soldiers training Kurds in northern Iraq. It is unclear at this point whether an expanded training role would mean boosting the size of that special forces contingent or whether it would see regular troops helping improve Iraqi skills.

There have been initial discussions among planners at Department of National Defence headquarters but little can be done until a Trudeau government takes power. The cabinet will be sworn in Nov. 4.

“We would engage Canada’s military in something we’ve demonstrated tremendous ability at in Afghanistan and elsewhere: training up local troops doing the fighting on the ground,” Trudeau said during the election campaign.

The U.S. is conducting a training mission in Iraq and has more than 3,500 troops there. Troops from Italy, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway and Finland all have been involved in training Kurdish forces.

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper committed Canada to the Iraq war a year ago. Six CF-18 fighter jets, surveillance and refuelling aircraft, as well as 600 personnel are involved in the bombing mission.

It will be up to Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance to present the options to Trudeau’s government.

Just 10 months ago, Vance — then a lieutenant general and in charge of the Iraq operation — was asked by journalists what would happen if the Canadian bombing mission ended early.

Vance answered that the coalition would adapt. “They have the capacity to react if a partner in the coalition leaves the mission,” Vance said in January. “It is possible to set priorities but we are very important at the present time in the mission, very important in the coalition, but they can change their method, their targeting and the priority of targets if one partner or another leaves the mission.”

Defence analyst Martin Shadwick said the impact of Trudeau’s decision to leave the bombing campaign will be blunted by Canada’s decision to commit more training troops.

“If it had been a complete pullout from the mission, then our allies would not have been happy,” said Shadwick, who teaches strategic studies at York University.

There have been concerns in the U.S. that the bombing campaign has had a limited impact. ISIL has retreated from about 25 per cent of the territory it seized in Iraq but it still continues to hold large areas of the country.

In late August, Harper acknowledged the effect had been less than envisioned. “The intervention has had the effect of largely stopping the advance of (the Islamic State), particularly in the north of Iraq and to some degree in other parts of Iraq and Syria – not maybe as much we’d like,” he said.

The Conservatives also committed the RCAF to expanding the bombing mission to Syria starting in April. At the time, Defence Minister Jason Kenney incorrectly claimed Canada was needed because it was one of the few nations in the coalition that had smart bombs.

Canada has only conducted a small number of bombing missions in Syria because it doesn’t have enough information about targets on the ground.

Liberal Majority: What to Expect for the CAF

It is the morning after - and we now have another Majority government - no election until October 2020 (unless the fixed date election law changes)

So with a Liberal Majority will we see a return to the "Decade of Darkness" for the Canadian Armed Forces as was seen under the leadership of Jean Chretien? It is highly unlikely, as the world has changed a lot since the 2000, and the CAF is just as involved internationally now as we were then, albeit less involved in UN led missions. So what should we expect for the CAF under a Liberal government for the next 5 years?

The Liberals and Justin Trudeau pledge to boost Canada's support for International Peace and Security. The policy calls for a renewed commitment by Canada to Peacekeeping Operations. (I personally do not believe Peacekeeping exists, but Peace Enforcing, or Peace Making, but that is another rant all together)

The Liberals have said they will support Civilian Police Training Operations, particularly in French-Speaking nations where our highly Professional Military Police, RCMP and Civilian Police agencies can help developing nations maintain law and order.

They will lead an international effort to improve and expand the training of military and civilian personnel deployed on peace operations, and will insist that any peacekeepers involved in misconduct be held accountable by their own country and the United Nations.

They will recommit to supporting international peace operations with the United Nations, and will make the specialized capabilities – from mobile medical teams to engineering support to aircraft that can carry supplies and personnel  of the CAF available on a case-by-case basis.

For military spending, the Liberals will not let Canada’s Armed Forces be shortchanged, and we will not lapse military spending from year to year. They will also reinvest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military, including adequate support systems for military personnel and their families. So perhaps no new money, but no new cuts, and current planned increases will take place. 

The Liberal Party will not by the F-35 Stealth Joint Strike Fighter. They will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft. The primary mission of our fighter aircraft should remain the defence of North America, not stealth first-strike capability. (My vote would be for the Dassault Rafael, which Dassault has offered to build in Canada = JOBS; it is also faster, cheaper, and dual engines) The Liberals will reduce the procurement budget for replacing the CF-18s, and will instead purchase one of the many, lower-priced options that better match Canada’s defence needs.

The money saved from the F-35 purchase will be invested in the Royal Canadian Navy - which despite the ship building contracts awarded by the Conservatives has seen a "Decade of Darkness" under Harper. Many will claim that is because the Navy was not highly active in the War in Afghanistan (2001-2014); but I contest that they were deployed in the Arabian Peninsula almost entirely throughout the War.  The Liberals say they will have the funds that we need to build promised icebreakers, supply ships, arctic and offshore patrol ships, surface combatants, and other resources required by the Navy. These investments will ensure that the Royal Canadian Navy is able to operate as a true blue-water maritime force, while also growing the economy and creating jobs.

They will immediately begin an open and transparent review process of existing defence capabilities, with the goal of delivering a more effective, better-equipped military. The Canada First Defence Strategy, launched by Stephen Harper in 2008, is underfunded and out of date. The Liberals will review current programs and capabilities, and lay out a realistic plan to strengthen the CAF.

The Liberals plan to develop the CAF into an agile, responsive, and well-equipped military force that can effectively defend Canada and North America; provide support during natural disasters, humanitarian support missions, and peace operations; and offer international deterrence and combat capability. (The CAF already does much of this, but we can look forward to more domestic operations)

The Liberals plan to  continue to work with the United States to defend North America under NORAD, and contribute to regional security within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

They will do this by ensuring that equipment  is acquired faster, and with vigorous Parliamentary oversight; and  put a renewed focus on surveillance and control of Canadian territory and approaches, particularly our Arctic regions, and will increase the size of the Canadian Rangers.

The Liberals remain fully supportive of OPERATION REASSURANCE and OPERATION UNIFIER. However, they will make changes to OPERATION IMPACT. The RCAF involvement in the air campaign against ISIS will come to an end, but the Liberals plan to increase the number of trainers in Iraq (no specifics given yet) and will increase Canada's commitment to helping 25,000 Syrian refugees. Although no specif role for the CAF in the Syrian refugee crisis has been announced yet - the CAF can and will most likely play a role. 

The Liberals will restore funding for Canada’s four heavy urban search and rescue teams. Being able to respond swiftly and effectively to emergencies like ice storms, floods, wildfires, and building collapses is in our national interest. In the past, Canada’s four heavy urban search and rescue teams have proven invaluable in keeping Canadians and communities safe.To protect Canadians, our oceans, and our coastal economies, they will also re-open the Maritime Rescue Sub-centre in St. John’s, and the Kitsilano Coast Guard Base in Vancouver. No specifics yet on a new FWSAR for the RCAF.

The Liberals also plan to be much better to Veterans, who also seem to have been in a "Decade of Darkness" under the Conservatives, and invest in new career opportunities in a new Veterans Education Benefit program, at a  cost of $80 million per year. 

There is a lot here - so now we can sit back and watch for the next 5 years and see how things go. The CAF should be in good hands.

Feel Free to let me know what you think? Comment here or on Twitter, @Avro_ArrowRL201

Election 2015: Will Determine Canadian Role in F-35 Program

David Pugliese of defensenews.com has published the following on the F-35: 

(Written by David Pugliese)

VICTORIA, British Columbia — Whether Canada withdraws from the F-35 program will be decided next week as Canadians select a new political party to form the country’s next government.

Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau says if elected on Oct. 19, his government would remove Canada from the F-35 program and select a less costly aircraft to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s CF-18 fighter jets. The savings from such a move would be redirected into naval shipbuilding, according to Trudeau.

The Conservative Party, led by Stephen Harper, has been in power for nine years and would continue the country’s partner status in the F-35 program, although it has not yet committed to buying the aircraft.

The Liberals are in a hotly contested two-way race with the Conservatives, with opinion polls showing the election too close to call.

The Liberals released an 88-page election platform Oct. 5, which included some details about how it would proceed with replacing the CF-18s.

“The primary mission of our fighter aircraft should remain the defence of North America, not stealth first-strike capability,” the platform noted. “We will make investing in the Royal Canadian Navy a top priority. By purchasing more affordable alternatives to the F-35s, we will be able to invest in strengthening our Navy.”

But Harper warns that Trudeau’s plan would seriously damage Canada’s aerospace industry.

“The Liberal Party is living in a dream world if they think we could pull out of the development project of the F-35 and not lose business,” Harper told journalists Sept. 21.

Trudeau has countered that Canadian aerospace firms would receive equal or more work on a new fighter jet project that would invite bids from a variety of firms.

The other potential contenders to replace Canada’s CF-18s are the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Dassault Rafale, Boeing’s Super Hornet and Saab’s Gripen.

Thirty-three Canadian firms have active contracts on the F-35 program totaling US $637 million.

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s undersecretary of defense for acquisition, raised questions about Harper’s claims when he told reporters Sept. 22 that Canadian firms involved in the F-35 program would likely continue to supply components.

“I believe those suppliers are part of the team, I don’t see any reason why they would not continue to be part of the team whether Canada [buys jets] or not,” Kendall said during a ceremony to celebrate the roll out of Norway’s first F-35.

“We make our decisions on participation based on best value, and if Canadian firms are still best value, then they will be part of the program.”

Alan Williams, who signed the original memorandum that brought Canada into the F-35 program in 1997, also questioned Harper's claim.

"Those Canadian companies were selected because they provided the best product at the best value," said Williams, who is the former assistant deputy minister for materiel at Canada’s Department of National Defence. "They weren't selected because they were Canadian."

Williams said holding an open competition for a CF-18 replacement would ensure Canadian aerospace firms have the best chance at obtaining work on such a project.

Lockheed Martin has not commented on Trudeau’s plan. But in the past, company representatives warned that if Canada doesn't buy the F-35, it might not continue using Canadian firms on the project.

On Sept. 25, Canadian firms involved in the F-35 program released a joint statement emphasizing the program had already created long-term high technology jobs.

The firms noted that the F-35 program could create CAN $11 billion (US $8 billion) in work for Canadian companies as well as future opportunities to be involved in supporting the aircraft.

“If Canada does not buy the F-35, these opportunities and future technological advancements, will be in jeopardy of being lost to other countries,” said the statement from the Canadian JSF Industry Group. “Current and future jobs will be lost to countries that buy the F-35.”

Although Harper supports Canada’s continued involvement in the F-35 program, he stopped short of saying the country would purchase the fighter jet.

Harper had previously committed his government to buying 65 F-35s.

But in December 2012, the Conservative government, under fire over questions about the increasing cost of the F-35 program and how the procurement process had been handled, announced it would put the acquisition on hold. The procurement process has yet to restart.

"No decision has been made on the CF-18 replacement at this point," said Conservative Party spokesman Stephen Lecce.

Harper dismissed Trudeau’s plan to provide further funding for Canadian naval programs, adding that his government has launched the largest shipbuilding program in the country’s peacetime history. But most of the projects, announced in 2006 and 2007, have been delayed and no new ships have been built.

In the meantime, the Royal Canadian Navy has taken out of service its only two supply and refueling ships as well as two of its three remaining destroyers. The ships were decommissioned because of their age as well as mechanical issues.

Trudeau said his government’s increase in funding to shipbuilding would speed up the construction process. “We are going to build the ships and prevent the kind of delays on hiring and training and investment in infrastructure in order to deliver those ships in a timely way and on budget,” Trudeau explained to journalists.

The New Democratic Party, which at one point was in a three-way tie with the Liberals and Conservatives, said if elected it would hold a competition for the CF-18 fighter replacement.

Election 2015: We Continue to Debate the Peacekeeping Myth

In light of last nights Debate on Foreign policy - I decided to re-blog about a subject I have blogged about numerous times in the past - the Peacekeeping Myth that revolves around the Canadian Armed Forces. 

The Truth is, Canada was never a Peacekeeper to just keep the peace. We have stepped into Peacekeeping roles in order to protect our own interests and the interests of out Allies (NATO). Our Peacekeeping missions were a strategic warfare strategy that developed during the Cold War, and has died down since, 1991. This is why we are no longer a "Peacekeeping" nation. Canada's participation has always been in some way to bolster the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; albeit under a United Nations flag. 

The best place to start a review of Canada's so called Peacekeeping Past is with Dr. Sean M. Maloney's “Canada and UN Peacekeeping—Cold War by Other Means, 1945-1970” This book is not an operation history of each mission, but was put together in order to clearly outline that Canada was peacekeeping in order to win the Cold War, and not peacekeeping in order to keep the peace. 

The Canadian Military Journal has also debated this subject, while the current page has been archived, because this debate is (believe it or not) that old - and supposed to be OVER!  http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no4/wagner-eng.asp
The Article, entitled "The Peaceable Kingdom?" used Maloney's work as a basis, as well as one of the greatest Canadian Historians, J.L. Granatstein's work “Canada and Peacekeeping: Image and Reality.” 

Harper Claims F-35s Needed to Defeat ISIS

Over the weekend the F-35 debate was brought into the 2015 Canadian election. Justin Trudeau said that the Liberal Party would scrap the plan to purchase the JSF F-35; whose budget continues to go overboard, and continues to prove not to be the aircraft it claims. The NDP have said they would reopen the bidding process, and if the F-35 wins that process, than it is fair game.

Prime Minister Stephen Haper shot back at the Liberals by saying Canada needs the F-35 to defeat ISIS, and replace the aging CF-18 Hornets that are currently being used against ISIS. (Lets rewind about a year) What happened to the Government shelving the replacement of the CF-18s until a later date, and committing to spend the hundreds of millions to upgrade them to fly until at least 2025? Obviously Harper is back peddling yet again...and his statement that the F-35s are needed to defeat ISIS is ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? There are NO F-35s currently deployed by any coalition member against ISIS. The F-22's have only just deployed on their first combat support roles in both Eastern Europe and Iraq/Syria. So how can one claim the F-35s are needed to defeat ISIS? Also, if the life extension of the CF-18s will allow them to fly until well past 2025, will we still be fighting ISIS in 10 years? If so, maybe that is the bigger problem.

If the Americans (or any other ally who has already agreed to purchase the JSF) were using the F-35s against ISIS with a higher success rate than our CF-18s then I could potentially agree - but there are none deployed.

For a list of coalition aircraft currently involved against ISIS, please see my previous post "Continue to Support Air Task Force Iraq"

Construction Begins on AOPS

It has been 8 years since the Harper government announced the procurement of six Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) - construction of the first AOPS started Tuesday in Halifax.

Numerous employees celebrated the start of production.

Irving Shipbuilding released the following image for the press:



According to Irving the first AOPS will be complete in 2018, and be fully operational by 2019. The final AOPS will be complete by 2022.

Construction has actually started according to Irving - as many people cheered June 18, 2015 when a similar announcement was made - but that was only testing for test modules.

Navy Rents Barge to Deliver Fuel to Arctic

The Royal Canadian Navy is supplying its ships through any means necessary. This summer, the Navy rented the Chilean Navies AOR supply vessel for$6 million for 40 days, and are working on leasing a Spanish Navy AOR for the East Coast. The Navy has also announced it will rent the Chilean vessel several more times in the coming years.

Now the Navy has hired a company to move more than 220,000 liters of marine fuel on a barge into the Arctic, so that the Navy could fuel its warships during Northern exercises. The barge was also used to resupply the ships, according to a Navy officer.

Last month the Navy deployed two Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs) to the Arctic from the West Coast. This is the first time in 60 years that ships from Canada's Pacific fleet have ventured into the North. The military identified refueling the ships as a major hurdle in the exercise. The military has experimented with refueling barges before and decided that this was the best way to resupply the ships. Logistics when operating in the North is one of the most difficult tasks for any military when operating in such a remote location.

The Navy originally planned on sailing the barge from CFB Esquimalt, but that proved to me too difficult, and not very cost effective - a journey of more than 6,500 km. Instead the fuel was transported by truck to Mackenzie River, and then towed into the Arctic.

The barge was jointly used to help resupply other ships taking part in the 2015 portion of OP NANOOK.

In 2007 the Harper government announced it would construct a deep-water port and refueling station at Nanisivik on Baffin Island - which was supposed to be operational by 2012 - but it has fallen behind schedule and rising costs will limit the project. It is supposed to be operational by 2018 - and will only act as a refueling station during the summer months. A number of defence analysis inisit the Canadian Forces will need multiple refueling stations in the North if the Navy and the CF will have a larger presence in the future. It would also help Canada's sovereignty claims.

No costs associated with renting the barge have been released.

Election 2015: Harper Promises Increase in Reserve Force

Today at a Campaign stop in Fredericton, New Brunswick Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that if the Conservatives are re-elected, they would increase the number of Reserves in the Canadian Armed Forces from 24,000 to 30,000 within the next four years. That is almost a decade faster than the current Canadian Defense Strategy, which lists 2028 as the date for the Reserves to hit the 30,000 troop level.

The Prime Minister announced that a Conservative government would streamline the recruitment process for Reserves, and more to a more Central training system in Ontario and the Great Lakes region, so Reserves can train closer to home.

Such a surge will help increase the effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces, especially in response to Canada's Sovereignty needs, national emergencies (floods, and forest fires), and to help protect Canada's coastal and offshore waters.

In the 2011 Election the Conservatives took 8 of the 10 Seats in New Brunswick, and he is hoping to do just as well this time around. Canada's largest Eastern Military Base is CFB Gagetown located just outside of Fredericton.

To read the original CBC News Article: Stephen Harper Pledges Reserve Increase

Canadian Forces Trainers to head to Jordan

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will announce today that Canada will send Canadian Forces trainers to Jordan, in an effort to help one of the biggest Arab allies in the fight against ISIS. The announcement will come with the visit of King Abdullah II to Ottawa on Wednesday.

Canada will help train the Jordanian Special Forces in an effort to prevent ISIS from spilling over the Jordanian boarder. The training mission will be for the next two years, into 2017 - depending on the start date - which is expected to be announced today.

The two year commitment in military training, and equipment from 2015 to 2017 will give Jordan the ability to prevent terrorist activities, as well as increase the overall response to such activities.  Training will also include chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threat assessments and prevention of such attacks.

The exact location of the training is being kept a secrete for security reasons, but Canadian Special Forces were in Jordan last year as part of Exercise Eager Lion.

More News after the announcement.

More from the Globe and Mail news release:

Lt. Gen. Jonathan Vance Announced as New CDS

Ottawa confirmed today what has been speculation - as Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed  Lt. Gen. Jonathan Vance (will become General) to the position of Chief of Defence Staff.

Vance led the Canadian task force twice in Kandahar, during the countries thirteen year engagement in Afghanistan.

Vance is currently Canada's Joint-Operations Commander - and has been the face of many of the countries international operations.

Photo: Canadian Press - April 27 2015, Ottawa. 

United for Ukraine: CAF to deploy 200 Troops to the Ukraine

Defence Minister Jason Kenney and Chief of Defence Staff General Tom Lawson announced with Prime Minister Stephen Harper that the Canadian Armed Forces and Canada is United for Ukraine; and will deploy approximately 200 troops to the Ukraine to help train local forces, who are fighting the Russian-backed separatists. Approximately 10-12 Military Police will be part of the deployment - to better train the police forces in the region as well.

The CAF members will be deployed both on a sustained and periodic basis, depending on the type of training, which will last until the end of March 2017.

Kenney said that this is yet another step in Canada's efforts to help the Ukraine maintain its territorial integrity against Russian aggression.

It was announced that Canadian troops will be as far removed from the conflict in Eastern Ukraine.

The training mission will begin during the summer of 2015 - and will take place primarily at the NATO training facility in Yavoriv, in Western Ukraine, near the Polish border. Other training will take place at the Ukrainian Defence De-mining Centre  in Kamyanets-Podilsky - also located in Western Ukraine. The Polish border is Canada's exit strategy, should the unthinkable happen, and Canadian troops are required to exit the Ukraine in a hurry.

Since January 2014, Canada has been sending non-lethal aid to the Ukraine, and has continued to refuse lethal aid. The Ukrainian embassy in Canada has said Canada's training assistance is highly appreciated.